Final Rule Summary: Derivatives (Parts 701, 703, 741, & 746 )

Final Rule Summary: Derivatives (Parts 701, 703, 741, & 746)                

Prepared by NASCUS Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Department
June 2021

NCUA has issued a final rule amending its provisions related to Derivatives transactions. For SCUs, the only relevant provisions of NCUA Derivatives Rules is the requirement to notify NCUA within 5 business days of having engaged in the credit union’s first derivatives transaction, and the exemption from notification for transactions listed in §703.14. The notification requirement is in § 741.219.

The final Derivatives rule is effective June 25, 2021. The final rule may be read here.

Summary

Although the following provisions of NCUA’s Derivatives Rule do not apply to FISCUs, NASCUS provides a brief overview of the FCU rules for informational purposes.

  1. Asset Threshold – NCUA is now allowing FCUs with $500+ million in assets, and a composite CAMEL rating of “1” or “2” to exercise derivatives authority without pre-approval from NCUA. FCUs will less than $500 million in assets need NCUA pre-approval before engaging in derivatives transactions.FISCUs do not need NCUA pre-approval to engage in derivatives transactions. SCUs look to state law for authority to use derivatives.
  2. FCUs with $500+ million in assets, and FISCUs, will be required to notify NCUA within 5 business days of entering into their first derivatives transactions.This is a change from the previous advance notice requirement.SCUs need not notify NCUA of engaging in transactions listed in § 703.14.
  3. Collateral Requirements – The final rule requires specific collateral types for non-cleared derivatives. Approved collateral includes:
    • Cash (U.S. dollars)
    • U.S. Treasuries
    • GSE debt
    • U.S. government agency debt
    • GSE residential mortgage-backed security pass-through securities
    • U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed pass-through securities
  4. Counterparties – The final rule retains the current rule’s counterparty provisions. For exchange-traded and cleared Derivatives, approved counterparties include:
    1. Swap Dealers
    2. Introducing Brokers
    3. Futures Commission Merchants that are current registrants of the CFTCFor Non-cleared Derivatives, registered CFTC Swap Dealers will be permitted to be the Counterparty.
  5. Liquidity Review – FCUs will be required to establish a liquidity review process to analyze and measure potential liquidity needs related to its Derivatives program before executing the credit union’s first derivatives transaction.
  6. Maturity – FCUs are limited to a 15-year maturity limit for derivatives.
  7. Written Options – The current FCU derivatives rule prohibits use of written options. NCUA will now permit written options but is adding a requirement that FCU derivatives may only be entered into to manage IRR.
  8. Pipeline Management – The final rule streamlines the pipeline management provisions to allow FCUs to use derivatives to manage interest rate risk for all of a FCU’s portfolio.
  9. Regional Director Authority – The final rule delegates authority to the NCUA Regional Director to prohibit a FCU from continuing to engage in derivatives transactions based upon regulatory or supervisory concerns.
  10. Monthly Reporting – FCUs must submit to their boards detailed monthly reports on the credit union’s derivatives activity. NCUA’s rule prescribes the contents of the monthly reports as well as record retention requirements.
  11. Derivative Transactions with Commercial Borrowers – FCUs are prohibited from entering into interest rate swaps with commercial borrowers. Final § 703.104(b) requires all FCU derivative counterparties to be regulated by the CFTC, and NCUA deems it unlikely that a commercial borrower would be CGTC regulated. Therefore, the final explicitly prohibits commercial borrowers from being counterparties for FCUs.
  12. USD LIBOR – NCUA is, for now, requiring FCU derivative contracts be based on Domestic Interest Rates or the USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). NCUA reevaluate this provision after the cessation of the USD LIBOR.
Letter to Credit Unions 21-CU-05 Interagency Statement on the Issuance of the AML/CFT National Priorities

July 2021 — NCUA issued LTCU 21-CU-05 to provide credit unions information on the issuance of AML/CFT National Priorities and subsequent obligations for BSA compliance programs. The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to establish priorities for AML/CFT policy. Those priorities were issued on June 30, 2021. The AML Act also requires credit unions and other covered entities to incorporate those priorities into their individual compliance programs once the federal banking agencies promulgate rules addressing the newly published priorities.

Specifically, NCUA informs credit unions:

  • NCUA plans to revise its BSA regulations, as necessary, to address how the AML/CFT Priorities will be incorporated into credit unions’ BSA requirements.
  • Credit unions are not required to incorporate the AML/CFT Priorities into their BSA compliance programs until the effective date of a final revised regulation. However, credit unions may wish to begin considering how the priorities could be incorporated into compliance programs.
  • NCUA examiners will not examine for incorporation of AML/CFT Priorities into BSA compliance programs until a final regulation implementing the AML/CFT Priorities becomes effective.

Legal Opinion 21-3500 Proposed Capital Markets Funding Program for Credit Unions

April 23, 2021

NCUA issued Legal Opinion 21-3500 to address issues related to a credit union funding program in which limited liability companies (LLCs) purchase share certificates from various federally insured credit unions (FICUs) where they are either members or otherwise eligible to maintain NCUA insured accounts. Under the proposed program, a given LLC would purchase a share certificate worth a maximum of $250,000, the standard maximum share insurance amount (SMSIA), at one or more FICUs.

Although NCUA was asked to confirm that each LLC’s account at the various FICUs was insured to the SMSIA, the GC responds that specific share insurance coverage will always be fact specific and predicated upon the individual or entity meeting all applicable requirements. NCUA’s GC did provide an overview of the issues involved in determining whether the LLCs would receive the SMSIA (share insurance coverage up to the $250k maximum).

In general, accounts held by entities such as an LLC are insured up to the SMSIA of $250,000 if they are engaged in an independent activity. NCUA notes that as long an LLC is engaged in “an activity other than one directed solely at increasing insurance coverage” the LLC will be found to be engaged in an independent activity and therefore qualify for maximum share insurance coverage.

NCUA was also asked if each LLC depositor in the proposed program at a single FICU would receive separate maximum share insurance coverage and not have their separate accounts aggregated for coverage purposes.

NCUA’s GC again noted that the answer would be fact specific, but also confirmed that in general, separate legal entities that are engaged in independent activities and are the true owners of the funds in the account they maintain are eligible to receive coverage up to the SMSIA.

In closing, the GC stressed that for an LLC to receive coverage, it must legally own the funds in the account and be a member of the FICU or otherwise qualify to maintain an insured account at the FICU.

###

Final Rule Summary: Capitalization of Interest (Parts 741) 

Prepared by NASCUS Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Department
June 2021

NCUA has issued a final rule lifting the Part 741 Appendix B prohibition on the capitalization of interest in connection with loan workouts and modifications. The final rule also establishes documentation requirements to help ensure that the addition of unpaid interest to the principal balance of a mortgage loan does not hinder the borrower’s ability to become current on the loan. In addition, NCUA has made several technical changes to the existing regulation intended to improve clarity.

The final rule applies to all federally insured credit unions (FICUs).

The final Capitalization on Interest rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The rule may be read in its entirety here.

Summary

A May 3, 2012, NCUA rule established loan workout and monitoring requirements applicable to all FICUs, including mandating that FICUs have written policies addressing loan workouts and nonaccrual practices and prohibiting additional advances to a borrower to finance unpaid interest (capitalization of interest) and credit union fees and commissions. Under the 2012 rule, FICUs were permitted to advance funds to cover 3rd-party fees, such as force-placed insurance and property taxes.

In lifting the prohibition against capitalization of interest, NCUA cites both FICUs need for greater flexibility to work with borrowers adversely impacted by the pandemic as well as the fact that while the federal banking agencies provide guidance to banks on the practice, the agencies do not prohibit financing of unpaid interest.

The Final Rule

  • Prohibition on Capitalization of Interest Removed Indefinitely – § 741, Appendix B, is amended to permit FICUs to capitalize interest in connection with loan workouts and modifications. While this change applies to workouts of all types of loans (including commercial and business loans); it only applies to loan modifications.
  • Capitalization of Interest Defined – Appendix B will define capitalization of interest as constituting the addition of accrued but unpaid interest to the principal balance of a loan.
  • Capitalizing FICU Fees and Commissions is Still Prohibited – While the final rule amends Appendix B to allow capitalization of interest, FICUs are still prohibited from capitalizing their owns fees and commission. However, funds may be advanced to cover 3rd party fees to protect loan collateral (such as force placed insurance or property taxes).
  • Consumer Protection – NCUA is maintaining several Appendix B requirements that apply to all loan workout policies to provide consumer protection guardrails. For example:
    • NCUA expects that loan workouts will balance the best interests of the FICU and the borrower.
    • A FICU’s policy must establish limits on the number of modifications allowed for an individual loan and must ensure that loan workout decisions are based on a borrower’s renewed willingness and ability to repay.
    • FICUs must maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the new terms were communicated to the borrower; that the borrower agreed to pay the loan in full under the new terms; and, most importantly, that the borrower can repay the loan under the new terms.

NCUA also notes that if a FICU restructures a loan more frequently than once a year or twice in five years, examiners will have higher expectations for the documentation of the borrower’s renewed willingness and ability to repay the loan. If a FICU engages in multiple restructurings, examiners will request validation documentation regarding collectability of the loan.

  • New Loan Modification Policy Requirements – For FICUs that capitalize interest, NCUA has added new requirements for loan modification policies:
    • The policy must require compliance with all applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, including the ECOA, the Fair Housing Act, TILA, RESPA, FCRA, CFPB’s UDAP prohibitions, and any applicable state laws (that in some cases may be more stringent than federal law).
    • Documentation must reflect a borrower’s ability to repay and sources of funds for repayment. Documentation must also reflect, as appropriate, compliance with the FICU’s valuation policies at the time the modification is approved.
    • Borrowers must be provided with documentation that is accurate, clear, and conspicuous and consistent with Federal and state consumer protection laws.
    • Loan status for modified loans must be reported in accordance with applicable law and accounting practices. Modified loans should not be reported as past due if the loan was current prior to modification and the borrower is complying with the terms of the modification.

Specifically, Appendix B requires FICUs maintain prudent policies and procedures that both 1) help borrowers resume appropriately restructured payments (payments that are affordable and sustainable); and 2) minimizing losses to the credit union. The prudent policies and procedures must consider:

    • Whether the loan modifications are well-designed, consistently applied, and provide a favorable outcome for borrowers.
    • The available options for borrowers to repay any missed payments at the end of their modifications to avoid delinquencies or other adverse consequences.
    • Appropriate safety and soundness safeguards to prevent the following:
      • Masking deteriorations in loan portfolio quality and understating charge-off levels;
      • Delaying loss recognition resulting in an understated ALLL account or inaccurate loan valuations;
      • Overstating net income and net worth (regulatory capital) levels;
      • Circumventing internal controls.
  • Technical Updates to Appendix B – NCUA also made several technical updates to Appendix B intended to improve the rule’s clarity and update certain references. Examples of these technical changes include:
    • Clarifying that Appendix B is a mandatory regulatory requirement rather than guidance. For example, current Appendix B uses both the mandatory “should” while also referring to certain provisions, inaccurately, as “guidance.” References to the Appendix as “guidance” are being removed.
    • Updating references to other guidance in the Appendix. For example, the final rule updates references to the NCUA’s or other guidance in the Appendix such a conform the FASB reference in the Appendix to changes made by FASB to its guidance.
    • Conform terminology to current usage. For example, NCUA now uses the term commercial lending rather member business lending.

###

21-RA-06 CFPB Delays Mandatory Compliance Date of General Qualified Mortgage (QM) Final Rule Under Truth in Lending Act

June 2021

Earlier this year, NCUA issued Regulatory Alert 21-RA-01 to provide credit unions information on CFPB changes to the ATR/QM Rule made in December 2020. However, in April, 2021, CFPB issued a final rule amending TILA’s Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule). This new final rule makes changes to provisions covered in 21-RA-01. NCUA issued Regulatory Alert 21-RA-06 to address these changes.

The April final rule from the CFPB made changes to 2 QM loans:

  •  General QMs (12 CFR 1026.43)

 The December 2020 QM Rule amended Reg Z by replacing the General QM loan definition of debt-to-income (DTI) limit with a limit based on loan pricing and making other changes to the General QM loan definition. These changes took effect on March 1, 2021 (with mandatory compliance starting July 1, 2021).

Under the April 2021 final rule, mandatory compliance is extended from July 1, 2021 until October 1, 2022. In addition, a lender can use either the original underwriting process (with the 43% DTI limit) or the new underwriting process (with price-based thresholds) for applications received from March 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022.

Lenders must use the revised General QM loan definition for applications received on or after October 1, 2022.

  •  Temporary GSE QMs (12 CFR 1026.43)

 Temporary GSE QMs are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by either the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (the GSEs), while operating under the conservatorship or receivership of the FHFA. A 2020 rule limited the Temporary GSE QM loan definition to covered transactions for which the lender receives the consumer’s application before the mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule (Jul1, 2021).

Under the April 2021 final rule, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition now expires upon the earlier of October 1, 2022, or the date the applicable GSE exits federal conservatorship. This is known as “the GSE Patch.”

For additional information, see the CFPB’s compliance guide and other resources.

21-RA-07 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)

June 2021

NCUA’s Regulatory Alert 21-RA-07 discusses the CFPB’s March 2021 interpretive rule clarifying the scope of  the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (Reg B). The interpretive rule became effective March 16, 2021.

The interpretive rule clarifies that ECOA and Reg B cover discrimination against individuals, not merely groups, and states that sex discrimination includes discrimination motivated by actual or perceived non-conformity with sex or gender-based stereotypes (for example, discriminating against an applicant because the customer’s attire does not accord with the customer’s perceived gender).

Noting that some state laws also prohibit discrimination in credit transactions based on sexual orientation or gender identity, NCUA instructs credit unions to ensure their policies, procedures, and training materials promote compliance with ECOA and Reg B. NCUA also urges credit unions to review automated scoring, decisioning, and pricing models for variables that could be proxies for prohibited bases of discrimination.

The CFPB stated the interpretive rule is consistent with the 2020 United States Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that holds the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination.

21-RA-06 CFPB Delays Mandatory Compliance Date of General Qualified Mortgage (QM) Final Rule Under Truth in Lending Act
June 2021

Earlier this year, NCUA issued Regulatory Alert 21-RA-01 to provide credit unions information on CFPB changes to the ATR/QM Rule made in December 2020. However, in April, 2021, CFPB issued a final rule amending TILA’s Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule). This new final rule makes changes to provisions covered in 21-RA-01. NCUA issued Regulatory Alert 21-RA-06 to address these changes.

The April final rule from the CFPB made changes to 2 QM loans:

  •  General QMs (12 CFR 1026.43)

 The December 2020 QM Rule amended Reg Z by replacing the General QM loan definition of debt-to-income (DTI) limit with a limit based on loan pricing and making other changes to the General QM loan definition. These changes took effect on March 1, 2021 (with mandatory compliance starting July 1, 2021).

Under the April 2021 final rule, mandatory compliance is extended from July 1, 2021 until October 1, 2022. In addition, a lender can use either the original underwriting process (with the 43% DTI limit) or the new underwriting process (with price-based thresholds) for applications received from March 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022.

Lenders must use the revised General QM loan definition for applications received on or after October 1, 2022.

  •  Temporary GSE QMs (12 CFR 1026.43)

Temporary GSE QMs are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by either the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (the GSEs), while operating under the conservatorship or receivership of the FHFA. A 2020 rule limited the Temporary GSE QM loan definition to covered transactions for which the lender receives the consumer’s application before the mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule (Jul1, 2021).

Under the April 2021 final rule, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition now expires upon the earlier of October 1, 2022, or the date the applicable GSE exits federal conservatorship. This is known as “the GSE Patch.”

For additional information, see the CFPB’s compliance guide and other resources.

Letter to Credit Unions 21-CU-04 Renewal of PCA Relief
June 2021

NCUA issued LTCU 21-CU-04 to inform credit union of the agency’s renewal of regulatory relief related to PCA rules for adequately capitalized credit union earning retention and net-worth restoration plans (NWRPs) for qualifying undercapitalized credit unions. In response to the pandemic, NCUA issued the relief as an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on April 19, 2021. NASCUS’s summary of the IFR is available here.

The PCA relief being provided by NCUA was first issued in June 2020 and expired on December 31, 2020. Now, due to the continued impact of the pandemic, NCUA has renewed the relief thru March 31, 2022.

  • 702.201 – On April 26, 2021, the NCUA Board issued an Administrative Order waiving the earnings-retention requirement for adequately capitalized credit unions. Under this change, an adequately capitalized credit union that is unable to meet the earnings-retention requirement will not have to submit a written application requesting approval to decrease the amount of its earnings-retention requirement.
  • 702.206(c) – The second temporary change affects the submission of NWRPs by FICUs classified as undercapitalized predominantly because of share growth. Under this change, qualifying credit unions that experienced a decline in its net worth ratio due predominantly to temporary share growth may submit a streamlined NWRP. The streamlined NWRP would include an attestation by the credit union that the reduction in the net worth ratio was caused by share growth and that such share growth is a temporary condition due to COVID-19. Credit unions should also include the anticipated duration of the share growth and any actions the credit union plans to take to address its net worth ratio decline.
Request for Information & Comment: Extent to Which Model Risk Management Principles Support Compliance with BSA/AML & OFAC

Prepared by NASCUS Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Department
May 2021

On April 9, 2021, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC, issued an Interagency Statement on Model Risk Management for Bank Systems Supporting Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Compliance (Model Risk Management Guidance or MRMG). The federal banking agencies consulted with both FinCEN and NCUA before issuing the MRMG, but NCUA did not join in issuing the MRMG and it does not apply to credit unions.

Now, however, NCUA is joining the federal banking agencies in issuing a Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments and feedback on the extent to which the principles discussed in the MRMG support compliance by banks and credit unions with BSA/ AML laws and regulations. The RFI also seeks feedback on the extent to which the MRMG principles support compliance by bank and credit unions related to models and systems used in connection with OFAC requirements.

Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2021. The Request for Comment may be read in its entirety here.

Summary

The MRMG lays out principles for sound model risk management (MRM) in three key areas:

  • Model development, implementation, and use;
  • Model validation; and
  • Governance, policies, and controls.

The guidance describes different MRM responsibilities for different parties within a bank, based on their roles, including those building the models, those independently reviewing the models, and those providing a governance framework for MRM. The RFI, in which NCUA is participating, seeks information and comment on any aspects of the application of the principles conveyed in the MRMG to BSA/AML/OFAC compliance and whether the principles outlined in the MRMG supports compliance.

In addition to any general comments, NCUA and the banking agencies specifically seek feedback on the following 12 questions:

  1. Question: What types of systems do institutions employ to support BSA/AML and OFAC compliance that they consider models (e.g., automated account/transaction monitoring, interdiction, customer risk rating/scoring)? What types of methodologies or technologies do these systems use (e.g., judgment-based, artificial intelligence or machine learning, or statistical methodologies or technologies)?
  2. Question:
    To what extent are institutions’ BSA/ AML and OFAC models subject to separate internal oversight for MRM in addition to the normal BSA/AML or OFAC compliance requirements? What additional procedures do institutions have for BSA and OFAC models beyond BSA/ AML or OFAC compliance requirements?
  3. Question:
    To what extent do institutions have policies and procedures, either specific to BSA/AML and OFAC models or applicable to models generally, governing the validation of BSA/AML and OFAC models, including, but not limited to, the validation frequency, minimum standards, and areas of coverage (i.e., which scenarios, thresholds, or components of the model to cover)?

  4. Question:
    To what extent are the risk management principles discussed in the MRMG appropriate for BSA/AML and OFAC models? Please explain why certain principles may be more, or less, appropriate for institutions of varying size and complexity? Are there other principles not discussed in the MRMG that would be appropriate to consider?
  5. Question:
    Some bankers have reported that banks’ application of MRM to BSA/AML and OFAC models has resulted in substantial delays in implementing, updating, and improving systems. Please describe any factors that might create such delays, including specific examples.

  6. Question:
    Some bankers have reported that banks’ application of MRM to BSA/AML and OFAC models has been an impediment to developing and implementing more innovative and effective approaches to BSA/AML and OFAC compliance. Is MRM, relative to BSA/AML, an impediment to innovation? If yes, please describe the factors that create the impediments.

  7. Question:
    To what extent do institutions’ MRM frameworks include testing and validation processes that are more extensive than reviews conducted to meet the independent testing requirement of the BSA? Please explain.

  8. Question:
    To what extent do institutions use an outside party to perform validations of BSA/AML and OFAC compliance systems? Does the validation only include BSA/AML and OFAC models, as opposed to other types of models used by the institution? Why are outside parties used to perform validation?

  9. Question:
    To what extent do institutions employ internally developed BSA/AML or OFAC compliance systems, third-party systems, or both? What challenges arise with such systems considering the principles discussed in the MRMG? Are there challenges that are unique to any one of these systems?

  10. Question:
    To what extent do institutions’ MRM frameworks apply to all models, including BSA/AML and OFAC models? Why or why not?
  11. Questions:
    a) The following question all related to suspicious activity monitoring systems:

    1. To what extent do institutions validate such systems before implementation?
    2. Are institutions able to implement changes without fully validating such systems? If so, please describe the circumstances.
    3. How frequently do institutions validate after implementation?
    4. To what extent do institutions validate after implementing changes to existing systems (e.g., new scenarios, threshold changes, or adding/changing customer peers or segments)? Please describe the circumstances in which you think this would be appropriate.
    5. How do institutions validate such systems?
    6. What, if any, compensating controls do institutions use if they have not had an opportunity to validate such systems?

    (b) Suspicious activity monitoring system benchmarking:

    What, if any, external or internal data or models do institutions use to compare their suspicious activity systems’ inputs and outputs for purposes of benchmarking?

    (c) Suspicious activity monitoring system back-testing:

    How do institutions attempt to compare outcomes from suspicious activity systems with actual outcomes, given that law enforcement outcomes are often unknown?

    (d) Suspicious activity monitoring system sensitivity analysis:

    How do institutions check the impact of changes to inputs, assumptions, or other factors in their systems to ensure they fall within an expected range?

  12. Question:
    To what extent do institutions calibrate the scope and frequency of MRM testing and validation models based on their materiality? How do they do so?
Request for Comment: Policy for Setting the Normal Operating Level NCUSIF

 Prepared by NASCUS Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Department
May 2021

In 2017, NCUA closed the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund (TCCUSF) and distributed its funds, property, and other assets and liabilities to the NCUSIF. At that time, NCUA also set the Normal Operating Level (NOL) of the NCUSIF at 1.39% and adopted a policy for setting the NOL.

NCUA is seeking public comments on whether changes should be made to the policy by which the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) NOL is set.

Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2021. The Request for Comment may be read in its entirety here.

Summary

Statutory Background:

The FCUA directs NCUA to maintain an equity ratio for the NCUSIF not less than 1.2% and not more than 1.5%. The FCUA further directs the calendar year-end equity ratio to be used to determine whether the NCUA must make a distribution to FICUs. NCUA must, by statute, make a distribution to FICUs if:

  • The NCUSIF’s equity ratio exceeds the NOL.
  • The NCUSIF’s available assets ratio exceeds 1%.
  • Any loans to the Fund from the Federal Government, and any interest on those loans, have been repaid.

Setting the NOL:

NCUA’s policy for setting the NOL, established in 2017, is as follows:

  • Annually, NCUA reviews the NOL to determine if a change is warranted.
  • Any change in the NOL of more than 1 basis point will only be made after public notice and comment.
  • In conjunction with the public notice and comment, NCUA will issue a public report with data supporting the proposed change in the NOL.

In setting the NOL, NCUA seeks to achieve the following objectives:

  • Retain public confidence in federal share insurance.
  • Prevent impairment of the 1% contributed capital deposit.
  • Ensure the NCUSIF can withstand a moderate recession without the equity ratio declining below 1.2% over a 5-year period.

NCUA’s NOL Policy Model:

To implement its NOL policy, NCUA developed a calculation based on projections related to the following factors:

  1. The modeled performance of the NCUSIF over a 5-year period assuming a moderate recession. The model’s stress scenario estimates 3 primary drivers of outcomes:
    • insurance losses
    • insured share growth
    • yield on investments

The NCUA’s analysis is based on the FRB’s adverse economic scenario. However, since the FRB did not publish an adverse scenario in 2020 or 2021, the NCUA must use a scenario developed from the FRB’s baseline and severely adverse scenarios.

  1. The modeled potential decline in value of the NCUSIF’s claims on the corporate credit union asset management estates in a moderate recession.
  2. The projected decline in the equity ratio through the end of the following year without an economic downturn.

The economic conditions posed by the pandemic, including unprecedented share growth resulting in an NCUSIF equity ratio of 1.26% at year-end 2020, and the approaching wind-down of the NGN program and failed federal corporate credit union estates. have caused NCUA to reconsider the feasibility of using a moderate recession and a 5-year performance period as the basis for modeling stress on the NCUSIF. NCUA now seeks comments on the policy and approach for setting the NCUSIF Normal Operating Level.

In particular, the Board is interested in comments addressing the following questions:

  1. Should a moderate recession be the basis for evaluating the Insurance Fund performance during an economic downturn, or should the NCUA change the policy to consider a severe recession?
  2. What data source(s) should the NCUA use for determining the characteristics of a potential moderate or severe recession – the Federal Reserve scenario, an independent source, or the NCUA’s judgment?
  3. Should the NCUA continue modeling the performance of the NCUSIF over a 5-year period or a longer or shorter period?
  4. How should the NCUA utilize the modeled potential decline in value of the NCUSIF’s claims on the corporate asset management estates going forward until the estates are fully resolved?
  5. Should the NCUA continue to incorporate in the NOL analysis the projected equity ratio decline through the end of the following year without an economic downturn? Should this period be longer or shorter, or not factored into the analysis at all?
  6. Given forecasting uncertainties and timing challenges, would it be reasonable for the NCUA to change the requirement to request public comment only if the NOL were to change by a larger amount than just one basis point?
  7. Should the NOL be re-evaluated in the midst of an economic downturn or should it be left unchanged until the onset of an economic recovery?
  8. Should the NOL be re-evaluated on qualitative factors based on the COVID-19 pandemic?
  9. Is there any other information that NCUA should consider when setting the NOL?

 

Interim Final Rule Summary: Temporary Regulatory Relief in Response to COVID–19 — Prompt Corrective Action
Parts 702                  

Prepared by NASCUS Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Department
May 2021

NCUA issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) to reenact 2 temporary changes made to part 702, Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) to provide regulatory relief to federally insured credit unions (FICUs) during the COVID–19 pandemic. The first change enables NCUA to issue orders applicable to all FICUs to waive the earnings retention requirement for any FICU that is classified as adequately capitalized. The second change modifies requirements for specific documentation required for net worth restoration plans (NWRPs) for FICUs that become undercapitalized.

These changes will be in place until March 31, 2022. This rule is substantially similar to an interim final rule that the Board published on May 28, 2020. (NASCUS’ comment letter in response to the 2020 IFR may be read here)

Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2021. The IFR may be read in its entirety here. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.

Summary

In May 2020, NCUA issued an IFR that temporarily amended:

  • Part 702.201 earnings retention requirement for credit unions classified adequately capitalized; and
  • Part 702.206(c) Net Worth restoration Plans (NWRPs) for FICUs that become undercapitalized

In light of the economic dislocation resulting from the pandemic, and the rapid growth of deposits on many credit union balance sheets resulting from government stimulus and recovery efforts, NCUA determined that decreasing the earnings-retention requirements set forth in the NCUA’s regulations was necessary to avoid a significant redemption of shares in otherwise healthy credit unions. As a result, NCUA allowed any natural-person FICU that had a net worth classification, of adequately capitalized between March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2020, to decrease its earnings-retention requirement to zero.

The 2020 regulatory relief expired on December 31, 2020. Although the regulatory relief expired at year-end 2020, NCUA has continued to evaluate the economic impact of the pandemic and government-sponsored economic relief efforts.

In response to the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that provides direct financial relief to individual taxpayers, NCUA anticipates that credit unions will once again receive a significant increase in deposits due to stimulus checks and believes it is appropriate to reinstitute the changes to the PCA provisions previously adopted in May 2020.

Reinstated Regulatory Relief

  • Part 702.201—Earnings-Retention Requirement for ‘‘Adequately Capitalized’’ FICUs

The purpose of existing § 702.201 is to restore a FICU that is less than well capitalized to a well-capitalized position in an incremental manner. Part 702.201 currently allows NCUA to waive the restoration requirement on a case-by-case basis upon submission of an application for waiver by a FICU and the FCUA provides NCUA authority to waive the requirement without an application or an individual order.

In light of the ongoing economic issues related to the pandemic, NCUA is re-enacting the change to the rule to provide for a blanket waiver of the earning retention requirement under PCA for adequately capitalized credit unions. The amendment also allows the NCUA Regional Director to require an application from a specific credit union should the situation so warrant.

This change will expire on March 31, 2022.

  • Section 702.206(c)—Net Worth Restoration Plans (NWRPs)

Pursuant to the FCUA, a FICU that is less than adequately capitalized must submit an NWRP to the NCUA. NCUA implements this provision through § 702.206. As discussed above, given the lingering economic issues related to the pandemic, NCUA has determined that it is appropriate to waive the NWRP content requirements for FICUs that become classified as undercapitalized predominantly as a result of share growth.

With this change, a FICU may submit a significantly simpler NWRP to the NCUA Regional Director attesting that its reduction in capital was caused by share growth and that such share growth is a temporary condition due to the combination of the pandemic and federal stimulus payments to taxpayers. (FISCUs must comply with applicable state requirements when submitting NWRPs for SSA approval.)

When reviewing an NWRP submitted pursuant to this provision, the NCUA RD will determine if the decrease in the net worth ratio was predominantly a result of share growth by analyzing the numerator and denominator of the net worth ratio:

  • No change, or an increase in the numerator and an increase in the denominator, would indicate that the decrease in the net worth ratio was due to share growth.

However, if there is an increase in the denominator and a decrease in the numerator, the NCUA RD will analyze whether the decrease in the numerator would have caused the credit union to fall to a lower net worth classification if there were no change in the denominator.

  • If so, the credit union’s net worth decline would not be predominantly due to share growth and the credit union would not be eligible to submit a streamlined NWRP.

NCUA notes that based on December 31, 2020, Call Report data, 48 credit unions would require an NWRP to be in place or be submitted for approval based on their PCA classification (up 30% from the 37 credit unions as of December 31, 2019).

The amendments made by the interim final rule will automatically expire on March 31, 2022 and are limited in number and scope.

 

Letter to Credit Unions 21-CU-03 LIBOR Transition
May 2021

NCUA issued LTCU 21-CU-03 to discuss issues related to the cessation of the publication of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and provide credit unions with the related Supervisory Letter 21-01 “Evaluating LIBOR Transition Plans” that NCUA issued to its examiners.

NCUA’s guidance follows guidance issued in November 2020 by the federal bank agencies, the FFIEC’s July 1, 2020, Joint Statement on Managing the LIBOR Transition, and the March 5, 2021, announcement by the LIBOR administrator announced that it cease publication of the one-week and two-month LIBOR settings immediately following publication of the December 31, 2021, LIBOR. The remaining LIBOR benchmarks will cease publication after the LIBOR publication on June 30, 2023.

NCUA cautions credit unions that the fact of certain LIBOR rates publishing until June 30, 2023, is not an opportunity to continue using LIBOR (i.e. entering into new contracts with terms beyond December 31, 2021) even though it might allow those contracts to mature naturally along with existing contracts with terms ending before December 31, 2022.

The NCUA encourages all federally insured credit unions to transition away from using the U.S. dollar LIBOR settings as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 2021.

Summary of NCUA’s Supervisory Letter 21-01 “Evaluating LIBOR Transition Plans”

While the guidance officially only applies to NCUA examiners, NCUA has shared it with states as well and many states will likely adopt similar guidance (indeed several states had already issued guidance on LIBOR well before NCUA’s new guidance).

I. Background

NCUA provides examiners background on the LIBOR, characterizing it as is a widely used short-term interest rate benchmark referenced in derivative, bond, and loan contracts, including a range of consumer lending instruments such as mortgages and student loans. Current USD LIBOR settings include overnight, 1 week, & 1, 2, 3, 6, & 12-month rates. Then the following occurred:

  • July 2017 – actions by European regulators (for deep background click here) set in motion developments leading to the announced end of LIBOR publication.
  • July 2020 – FFIEC Joint Statement on Managing the LIBOR Transition highlighted the risks resulting from the transition away from LIBOR. NCUA & other bank regulators advise institutions to avoid using LIBOR no later than 12/31/ 2021.
  • November 2020 – A clearer transition path away from LIBOR develops when it is announced some LIBOR rates might be published beyond 12/31/2021.
  • March 5, 2021 – Announcement that 1-week and 2-month USD LIBOR will cease publication after 12/31/2021. The remaining USD LIBOR settings will cease after June 30, 2023, allowing existing transactions indexed to the more widely-used LIBOR settings to mature naturally.

NCUA believes that given consumer protection, litigation, and reputation risks, entering new contracts using LIBOR as a reference rate after December 31, 2021, would create safety and soundness, and compliance risks. FICUs should not be entering new contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate unless they have robust fallback language that includes a clearly defined alternative reference rate, specific triggers, a spread adjustment, and some description of the conforming changes that are necessary.

II. Potential LIBOR Exposure

Credit unions may have LIBOR exposure in a variety of products & transactions, including derivatives, business loans, consumer loans, variable rate notes, securitizations (such as mortgage-backed securities), FHLB borrowings, and other products that have variable interest rates.

NCUA notes examiners should consider potential LIBOR exposure in the following products/portfolios and review for material LIBOR related risk:

  • Real Estate Loans
    The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) is traditionally the most common product incorporating LIBOR as a benchmark.  Credit unions could originate an ARM using loan underwriting standards established by a GSE such as Fannie or Freddie which also provide fallback language if LIBOR is no longer available. ARM mortgages that conform to GSE underwriting standards that credit unions originate represent low LIBOR risk.For non-conforming or customized ARMs that a credit union has originated and held in its portfolio, NCUA instructs its examiners to determine if an ARM has robust fallback language in the event the variable rate index is no longer available.
  • Other Loans
    Student loans also make up a significant portion of LIBOR-indexed loans owned by credit unions. NCUA notes that the potential for a high number of individual student loan accounts, combined with the likelihood of frequent borrower address/employment changes, may complicate credit union efforts to communicate rate changes to borrowers. For credit unions holding significant numbers of LIBOR-indexed student loan accounts, NCUA instructs examiners to consider:

    • reviewing the credit union’s transition plan
    • checking for fallback language
    • determining if the credit union has dedicated sufficient resources to modify LIBOR-indexed student loan accounts

Credit unions will typically have limited LIBOR exposure in commercial loan portfolios. A commercial loan may be part of a syndicated loan—typically, a variable rate instrument that references LIBOR as the variable rate index. Variable-rate commercial loans originated by a credit union are generally indexed to the Prime rate.

Auto loans typically use a fixed interest rate due to the relatively short-term maturity of the loans.

Credit card loans are revolving lines of credit with no fixed maturity date and are typically variable in rate using the Prime rate as a base index, plus an added spread to account for credit risk.

  • Investments
    Legacy LIBOR-indexed securities remain a significant percentage of variable rate assets held by credit unions. Fortunately, LIBOR-indexed investments typically have bond trustees that represent investors who are responsible for implementing robust fallback language to a new reference rate or rates in the transition away from LIBOR, which allows examiners to review such holdings with a low level of concern.
  • Borrowings
    As of September 27, 2019, the FHFA directed the FHLBank System to stop entering into LIBOR-based transactions involving advances with terms that mature after 12/31/2021. In July 2020, FHLB member banks were asked members to specifically identify LIBOR-indexed loans that are listed as collateral.NCUA instructs examiners to consider evaluating if the amount of LIBOR-indexed real estate loans pledged as collateral to an FHLB are material given the state of readiness of the credit union’s transition planning. Examiners can get the additional information and transition updates from the credit union’s FHLB member website.
  • Shares
    NCUA expects examiners to understand the credit union’s rate-setting methodology and to determine whether any repricing indexes are LIBOR-based. NCUA notes that most dividend rates paid on share accounts (e.g., money market, regular shares, & share drafts) are set by the credit union’s board rather than contractually tied to LIBOR.
  • Derivatives
    Interest rate derivatives are generally the largest transaction exposure to LIBOR risk for financial institutions, however this exposure is significantly smaller in credit unions. Interest rate swaps are the most common type of derivative that references USD LIBOR. Interest rate swaps involve the exchange of a fixed interest rate for a variable rate, or vice versa, and where the variable rate in the swap is often LIBOR. Derivative transactions are governed under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) agreement. In 2020, ISDA launched its Fallbacks Supplement and Fallbacks Protocol which amend ISDA’s standard definition for interest rate derivatives to incorporate robust fallbacks for derivatives linked to a key interbank offered rate. These changes became effective January 25, 2021. Centrally cleared swaps can be considered low risk, as can bi-lateral swaps for which counterparties have signed the ISDA protocol.

III. LIBOR Replacement Alternatives

NCUA does not endorse a specific replacement rate for USD LIBOR and the choice of reference rate is a business decision left to the credit union to determine what is appropriate (other than continuing to use LIBOR).

NCUA reiterates: All LIBOR-based contracts that mature after December 31, 2021 (one-week and two-month) and June 30, 2023 (one-, three-, six- and twelve-month) should include contractual language that provides for use of a robust fallback rate.

  • Secured Overnight Financing Rate
    While NCUA does not endorse a specific replacement index, the guidance does provide credit unions information on the alternative rate recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC). The ARRC was a joint FRB, CFTC, Treasury and Office of Financial Research initiative to identify an alternative to LIBOR. In June 2017, the ARRC selected the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as its recommended alternative to the USD LIBOR. The SOFR is based on transactions in the Treasury repurchase market, where banks and investors borrow or loan Treasuries overnight. As a result, SOFR is a secured rate and does not have a credit risk element.NCUA also discusses the fact that some existing contracts either do not address what happens in the absence of LIBOR or have provisions that could dramatically alter the economics of contract terms if LIBOR is discontinued. NCUA notes that there may be some contracts for which amending to address the discontinuance of LIBOR would be difficult or impossible. For contracts governed by NY law (as many financial contracts are) new legislation enacted in April addresses legacy contracts that mature after June 2023 and do not have effective fallbacks by:
    • Prohibiting a party from refusing to perform its contractual obligations or declaring a breach of contract as a result of the discontinuance of LIBOR or the use of the statute’s recommended benchmark replacement;
    • Definitively establishing that the recommended benchmark replacement is a commercially reasonable substitute for and a commercially substantial equivalent to LIBOR; and
    • Providing a safe harbor from litigation for the use of the recommended benchmark replacement.

IV. Examination Considerations

NCUA is instructing its examiners to review credit union planning for the transition away from LIBOR through narrowly focused reviews tailored to the size and complexity of a credit union’s LIBOR exposures. The following criteria will be used to determine if a credit union’s LIBOR risk is minimal:

  1. Credit union is prepared to stop originating or engaging in any LIBOR-related transactions as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 2021.
  2. Credit union has minimal exposure to one-week or two-month LIBOR-indexed transactions that mature after December 31, 2021 (either by the total number or dollar balance) that do not have robust fallback language.
  3. Credit union has minimal exposure to 1, 3, 6, & 12 – month LIBOR-indexed transactions that mature after June 30, 2023 (either by the total number or dollar balance) that do not have robust fallback language.

The following are 6 risk areas examiners will use as a guide:

 1) Transition Planning – Instructs examiners that credit unions should be transitioning away from LIBOR by end of 2021 and that transition plans should be commensurate with the LIBOR exposure. Credit unions that have complex products or multiple product lines tied to LIBOR should maintain detailed plans and a project roadmap that defines transition timelines and milestones.

 2) Financial Exposure Measurement and Risk Assessment – FICUs with financial exposure to LIBOR should accurately measure and report their exposure to senior management, and the board including details on products, contracts, balances and transition costs.

 3) Operational Preparedness and Risk Control – Credit unions need to identify any internal and vendor-provided systems and models that use or require LIBOR and establish contingency plans in case a TSP cannot transition away from LIBOR.

 4) Contract Preparedness – FICUs should identify any contracts that reference LIBOR and not execute new contracts without fallback language. Transition plans should address how management will determine the impact of the end of LIBOR on existing contracts and the steps to be taken to make any needed modifications.

 5) Communication – FICUs should communicate the implications of the LIBOR transition on impacted financial products to their counterparties and members and mind compliance with any applicable laws and regulations such as Truth in Lending Act. For more information, see NCUA’s Federal Consumer Financial Protection Guide.

 6) Oversight – A credit union should provide its transition plan to the personnel necessary to implement the transition and provide regular status updates to senior management and the board.

Examiners have been instructed to document their LIBOR exposure findings in the revised LIBOR Alternative Readiness Workbook and to communicate any findings and recommendations to the credit union’s board and management through the ROE.

##